Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 116, Issue 2, pp 429–445 | Cite as

The Latent Profiles of Life Domain Importance and Satisfaction in a Quality of Life Scale

  • Ssu-Kuang Chen
  • Sunny S. J. LinEmail author
Article

Abstract

The present study aimed to use a latent profile analysis to distinguish between populations in terms of life domain importance and satisfaction profiles. Then, a multinomial logistic regression was used to determine how background variables (e.g., gender, living areas, and school levels) and self-perceived health predict each latent quality of life (QoL) profile. We also investigated how the latent groups of adolescents predicted negative and positive well-being indicators (e.g., problem behaviors and overall life satisfaction). The sample consisted of 720 Taiwanese secondary school students. Three latent groups were established as follows: “unimportant-unsatisfied,” “important-unsatisfied,” and “important-satisfied.” The results indicate the following: (a) boys were more likely to fall into the “unimportant-unsatisfied” group than were girls; (b) better health increased the likelihood of being in the “important-satisfied” group; (c) high school students were more likely to be in the “unimportant-unsatisfed” group than were middle school students; and (d) no relationship was found between latent groups and living areas. The function of importance rating was not present when evaluating the importance-satisfaction profiles and their relationship with problem behaviors and overall life satisfaction. The problems of the “unimportant-unsatisfied” profile among youth are discussed.

Keywords

Quality of life Life domain importance Life satisfaction Latent profile model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is part of the “Taiwan Student Physical and Mental Development Study” funded by the ROC National Academy of Educational Research (NAER-95-24-A-2-01-00-2-14). Additional support came from the ROC National Science Council through two projects: “The Net and Taiwan Adolescents’ Physical and Mental Development” (NSC 97-2631-S-009-001) and “Internet Use and Well-being of Taiwan Students: Longitudinal Analysis and the Extension of Fact Bank” (NSC-100-2631-S-009-001 and NSC-101-2631-S-009-001).

References

  1. Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332. doi: 10.1007/BF02294359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benyamini, Y., Leventhal, H., & Leventhal, E. A. (2004). Self-rated oral health as an independent predictor of self-rated general health, self-esteem and life satisfaction. Social Science and Medicine, 59, 1109–1116. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.12.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradford, R., Rutherford, D. L., & John, A. (2002). Quality of life in young people: Ratings and factor structure of the quality of life profile-adolescent version. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 261–274. doi: 10.1006/yjado/469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, S. K., Hwang, F. M., & Lin S.S.J. (2011) Satisfaction ratings of QOLPAV: Psychometric properties based on the graded response model. Social Indicators Research, 1–17. doi:  10.1007/s11205-011-9935-1.
  5. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldbeck, L., Schmitz, T. G., Besier, T., Herschbach, P., & Henrich, G. (2007). Life satisfaction decreases during adolescence. Quality of Life Research, 16, 969–979. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9205-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Herman, K. C., Ostrander, R., Walkup, J. T., Silva, S. G., & March, J. S. (2007). Empirically derived subtypes of adolescent depression: Latent profile analysis of co-occurring symptoms in the treatment for adolescents with depression study (TADS). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 716–728. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ho, M. Y., Cheung, F. M., & Cheung, S. F. (2010). The role of meaning in life and optimism in promoting well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 658–663. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hsieh, C. (2003). Counting importance: The case of life satisfaction and relative domain importance. Social Indicators Research, 61, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hsieh, C. (2008). The relative importance of health. Social Indicators Research, 87, 127–137. doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9162-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hsieh, C. (2011). Issues in evaluating importance weighting in quality of life measures. Social Indicators Research. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-011-9951-1/fulltext.html
  12. Hsieh, C. (2012a). Importance is not unimportant: The role of importance weighting in QOL measures. Social Indicators Research, 109, 267–278. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9900-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hsieh, C. (2012b). Should we give up domain importance weighting in QoL measures? Social Indicators Research, 108, 99–109. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9868-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huebner, E. S., Valois, R. F., Suldo, S. M., Smith, L. C., McKnight, C. G., Seligson, J. L., et al. (2004). Perceived quality of life: A neglected component of adolescent health assessment and intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 270–278. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00285-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lo, Y., Mendell, N., & Rubin, D. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88, 767–778. doi: 10.1093/biomet/88.3.767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309–336. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2004). Latent class models. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 345–368). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781412986311.n10.Google Scholar
  19. Magnusson, D. (2003). The person approach: Concepts, measurement models, and research strategy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2003, 3–23. doi: 10.1002/cd.79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Magnusson, D., & Cairns, R. B. (1996). Developmental science: Toward a unified framework. In R. B. Cairns & G. H. Elder Jr (Eds.), Developmental science. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development (pp. 7–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Meuleners, L. B., & Lee, A. H. (2005). Quality of life profile–adolescents: Assessing the relationship of covariates to scale scores using structural equation modeling. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1057–1063. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-2573-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meuleners, L. B., Lee, A. H., Binns, C. W., & Lower, A. (2003). Quality of life for adolescents: Assessing measurement properties using structural equation modeling. Quality of Life Research, 12, 283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muthén, B. O. (2001). Latent variable mixture modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 1–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus User’s Guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  25. Raphael, D., Rukholm, E. B., Hill-Bailey, P., & Donato, E. (1996). The quality of life profile-adolescent version: Background, description, and initial validation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 19, 366–375. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(96)00080-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Russell, L. B., & Hubley, A. M. (2005). Importance ratings and weighting: Old concerns and new perspectives. International Journal of Testing, 5, 105–130. doi: 10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Russell, L. B., Hubley, A. M., Palepu, A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2006). Does weighting capture what’s important? Revisiting subjective importance weighting with a quality of life measure. Social Indicators Research, 75, 141–167. doi: 10.1007/s11205-004-2528-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwartz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sclove, S. L. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika, 52, 333–343. doi: 10.1007/BF02294360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 467–487. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trauer, T., & Mackinnon, A. (2001). Why are we weighting? The role of importance ratings in quality of life measurement. Quality of Life Research, 10, 579–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2008). Achievement goal orientations and subjective well-being: A person-centred analysis. Learning and Instruction, 18, 251–266. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wallander, J. L., Schmitt, M., & Koot, H. M. (2001). Quality of life measurement in children and adolescents: Issues, instruments, and applications. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 571–585. doi: 10.1002/jclp.1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wekipedia. (n.d.). Educatoin in Taiwan. Retrieved Nov. 8, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Taiwan
  35. Wu, C. H. (2008a). Examining the appropriateness of importance weighting on satisfaction score from range-of-affect hypothesis: Hierarchical linear modeling for within-subject data. Social Indicators Research, 86, 101–111. doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9103-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu, C. H. (2008b). Can we weight satisfaction score with importance ranks across life domains? Social Indicators Research, 86, 469–480. doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9180-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wu, C. H., Chen, L. H., & Tsai, Y. M. (2009). Investigating importance weighting of satisfaction scores from a formative model with partial least squares analysis. Social Indicators Research, 90, 351–363. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9264-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006a). Do we need to weight item satisfaction by item importance? A perspective from Locke’s range-of-affect hypothesis. Social Indicators Research, 79, 485–502. doi: 10.1007/s11205-005-5666-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006b). Do we need to weight satisfaction scores with importance ratings in measuring quality of life? Social Indicators Research, 78, 305–326. doi: 10.1007/s11205-005-0212-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2007a). Importance has been considered in satisfaction evaluation: An experimental examination of Locke’s range-of-affect hypothesis. Social Indicators Research, 81, 521–541. doi: 10.1007/s11205-006-0021-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2007b). Examining the relationship between global and domain measures of quality of life by three factor structure models. Social Indicators Research, 84, 189–202. doi: 10.1007/s11205-006-9082-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zekovic, B., & Renwick, R. (2003). Quality of life for children and adolescents with developmental disabilities: Review of conceptual and methodological issues relevant to public policy. Disability and Society, 18, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zullig, K. J., Ward, R. M., & Horn, T. (2006). The association between perceived spirituality, religiosity, and life satisfaction: The mediating role of self-rated health. Social Indicators Research, 79, 255–274. doi: 10.1007/s11205-005-4127-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationNational Chiao Tung UniversityHsinchuTaiwan R.O.C

Personalised recommendations